tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post960986917844358023..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Everything is to the Glory of God -RevampedMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77866667599714451572008-12-01T21:45:00.000-08:002008-12-01T21:45:00.000-08:00Re: A Higher Theory of Everything:How cool is that...Re: A Higher Theory of Everything:<BR/><BR/>How cool is that? I had no idea. It all makes so much sense to me now. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81255656236282489532008-12-01T21:42:00.000-08:002008-12-01T21:42:00.000-08:00Dear Dr. KakuApropos an article ‘Looking for a hig...Dear Dr. Kaku<BR/><BR/>Apropos an article ‘Looking for a higher theory of everything’ Interaction: Michio Kaku published in Times of India, New Delhi on seventh June 2008 at page number fourteen. I have written following two papers which may lead to the realisation for a higher theory of everything:<BR/><BR/>(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, <BR/>(1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, Lonavla Yoga Institute, Lonavla, January, 2006) <BR/>(ii) In Scientific Terminology, Source of Gravitational Wave is God<BR/>(2nd World Congress on Vedic Science, BHU, Varanasi, Feb 2007) <BR/>I have presented these two papers at the two different International Conferences. I am now submitting some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory<BR/><BR/>From Scriptures:<BR/>The Current which manifested in the beginning of the creation is the Current of Sabda (Sound) and of Chaitanya (Consciousness). From whom that Current issued forth is known as Soami (Supreme Being). This Current, by turning back can merge again in the Holy Feet of Supreme Being. The entire creation manifested from this current and is sustained with its energy and when the Current of the Holy Feet is withdrawn, the creation ceases to exist.This Current of the Holy Feet is the Reservoir of all energy, tastes and pleasures, knowledge, skill, shapes, forces and light etc. etc. and of the entire creation, is also the Creator of all of them.<BR/><BR/>From Science:<BR/>Gravitation Force is the cause of manifestation of the creation (birth of planets, stars), its sustenance and when it is withdrawn towards centre or source the entire creation ceases to exist. Photons have originated from gravitons. In black holes photons merge into gravitons. In Black Holes, Gravitational Force is so high that it does not allow even light to escape. What does it mean then? It simply means that the gravitational force at black-holes attracts light towards it with much greater velocity than the speed of light. In fact, all forces including electromagnetic force, material force (strong and weak nuclear force) all merge into gravitational force in black-holes and becomes one force there and when the creational process starts again from a Black-Hole all the forces appear (manifest) again and descends downwards to create billions of stars, planets, satellite, asteroids and various life forms. <BR/><BR/>Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation.<BR/><BR/>Anirudh Kumar Satsangi, <BR/><BR/>All cosmological researches should be conducted keeping in view of the following philosophical facts:<BR/>It has been stated in Bible (John I-1) “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”<BR/>The Radhasoami Religion also tells that, the ‘Word’ mentioned above is in fact Current of Sound or Current of Consciousness or Prime Current of Spirituality which was issued forth from its Source, or Creator or God. This Current has later on produced light and other forces. The scientists are discussing these days about dark energy which constitute about 96% of the entire universe which is not known to us. Only 4% part of the universe is known to us by all scientific means. In fact this 96% invisible portion of the universe is the vast expanse of spirituality which can be designated as field of gravitational waves in scientific terms. Visible portion of the universe (4%) consists of consciousness (gravitational force), mental force (electromagnetic waves) and material force (strong and weak nuclear force).<BR/>Body = Nuclear Force (weak as well as strong)<BR/>Mind = Electromagnetic Force.<BR/>Consciousness = Gravitation Force.<BR/>According to Radhasoami Religion the whole Universe can be sub-divided into three grand divisions viz.<BR/>1. Region of Pure Spirituality<BR/>2. Region of Subtle Maya<BR/>3. Region of Gross Maya<BR/>Nuclear forces dominate Region of Gross Maya (Gross Material Region), Electro-magnetic forces dominate Region of Subtle Maya (Subtle Material Region) and Gravitational Force dominates Pure Spiritual Region. <BR/>This is the only Truth which can be verified scientifically and can be termed as ‘higher theory for everything’. This also supports the statement of Sir Sahabji Maharaj the goal of science – Truth; the goal of philosophy – Ultimate Reality; and the goal of religion – God are the three names of same supreme essence.<BR/>1. Many things are common between Current of Consciousness and Gravitational Wave.<BR/>1. Current of consciousness can not be seen by any means and gravitational wave can also not be seen.<BR/>2. Current of consciousness is the weakest force on earth. Its strength goes on increasing on higher regions. Gravitational force is also very weak on earth and strong on Sun and even more stronger on black holes.<BR/>3 Tendency of both current of consciousness and gravitational waves are towards their source or centre.<BR/>4. Current of consciousness and gravitational force are both regarded as the creater of all the celestial and terrestrial bodies of the whole universe. They are also sustainer of these and when they turn back towards their source or centre the whole universe will collapse.<BR/>Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.<BR/>This theory is based on scientific deduction. All other theories appear to be work of imaginative thinking and sometimes do not satisfy the criteria of scientific verification. In scientific terms it can be said that the ‘gravitons’ are the elementary<BR/>particle which was issued forth in the beginning of the creation accompanying with sound ‘Radha’<BR/><BR/>Anirudh Kumar Satsangi<BR/>B.Sc., M.A. (Psychology), B.Ed., Adv. Dip. in Mgt.<BR/>P.A. To Director<BR/>Dayalbagh Educational Institute<BR/>(Deemed University)<BR/>Dayalbagh, Agra-282005Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-50332718243192661862008-10-31T10:19:00.000-07:002008-10-31T10:19:00.000-07:00darby m'graw:good point about the mixing of mono- ...darby m'graw:<BR/>good point about the mixing of mono- and polytheistic sources. yeah, that would affect the interpretation a lot. I don't have proof in one direction or the other. but I'm not a textual critic either. thanks for good dialogue.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-67000614771125854042008-10-31T08:01:00.000-07:002008-10-31T08:01:00.000-07:00"Elohim" is a plural term applied to a singular en...<I>"Elohim" is a plural term applied to a singular entity.</I><BR/><BR/>Other examples fail to spring to my mind.<BR/><BR/><I>If Genesis is a mixture of 2 narratives, is that an issue? Does that affect the purpose of the book? I don't think so.</I><BR/><BR/>Whose purpose? And if one of those narratives was polytheistic, then yes, it affects the interpretation which you claim as the purpose of the book, that it delivers a clear monotheistic creation story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41377770697648169812008-10-30T13:07:00.000-07:002008-10-30T13:07:00.000-07:00darby m'grawYes I am aware of that. "Elohim" is a...darby m'graw<BR/>Yes I am aware of that. "Elohim" is a plural term applied to a singular entity. Lots of other things we could say here that I won't get too deep into. In short though, the Hebrews were staunch monotheists. The New Testament writers were also staunch monotheists. Does Jesus arriving on the scene and claiming to be God present a problem to them? You can search the Scriptures yourself for the answers to that. <BR/><BR/>Okay so "Yahweh" is derived from a Hebrew verb meaning 'to be'. It is the name revealed to Moses when Moses asks "who am I to say sent me?" 'I am' (Yahweh) is the answer. You can also translate it 'I am that I am' which infers a continual existence. By extension it can also take the meaning of 'the one who is with you.'<BR/><BR/>If Genesis is a mixture of 2 narratives, is that an issue? Does that affect the purpose of the book? I don't think so. <BR/><BR/>Many scholars believe that the Pentateuch was written in different parts during different time periods. The first period of writing would have been around the Exodus from Egypt (and Moses is the primary author). The 2nd around the time of King David. And the 3rd during the return of Israel from exile. So if you take the best scholars at their word, this whole block of Scripture is a mixture of writings from different time periods. <BR/><BR/>I'm reading a book right now called "Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament". There is a section that deals with development of the text and what different scholars think. Its worth checking out if you're truly interested in the subject. See if your local library has it.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-13828897715471927652008-10-30T07:18:00.000-07:002008-10-30T07:18:00.000-07:00The Genesis account parallels other ancient creati...<I>The Genesis account parallels other ancient creation stories, but it is unique in that it points people to one God.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you aware that parts of Genesis refer to God as "Yahweh" (singular) and other parts refer to "Elohim" (plural)? Examples:<BR/><BR/>1:26 And God said, Let <B>us</B> make man in <B>our</B> image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.<BR/><BR/>3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of <B>us</B>, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:<BR/><BR/>Some textual scholars claim that Genesis is a mixture of two different narratives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-31505541799341449082008-10-29T17:02:00.000-07:002008-10-29T17:02:00.000-07:00correction of a statement in my 2nd paragraph: "Fu...correction of a statement in my 2nd paragraph: "Fundamentalists...who say the earth is 6000 years old" is what I meant. Not just 6000.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46485840699347483982008-10-29T14:10:00.000-07:002008-10-29T14:10:00.000-07:00Oh, sorry one more thing: I didn't say what I mean...Oh, sorry one more thing: I didn't say what I mean by the disjunction "OR" concerning natural and/or vs. logical possibility. But I'm sure the gist can be understood easily enough. <BR/><BR/> - Cheers<BR/><BR/>Sorry for being tedious MMJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8655615264907931442008-10-29T13:41:00.000-07:002008-10-29T13:41:00.000-07:00Ah crap I forgot to add this bro: "When equat...Ah crap I forgot to add this bro: <BR/><BR/> "When equations develop singularities, physicists normally interpret this to mean that the equations are being extended into a regime where they can no longer be trusted, and that the laws of physics they were using must be replaced by improved ones capable of making sens of the situation...(Turok uses an old singularity problem in physics that was solved using non-singularity methods)."<BR/><BR/>- Sorry for the length and I should have added this in my last post.<BR/><BR/> - JonJonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64627266664435521652008-10-29T13:35:00.000-07:002008-10-29T13:35:00.000-07:00To: Darby m'graw:I'm not giving any credit to some...To: Darby m'graw:<BR/><BR/>I'm not giving any credit to some god (I don't believe in god or God). I'm just basing the "more likely" on what appears to be that all that is natural has been around for infinity. Logically it might be possible (I'm not sure) that something can come from nothing (I doubt that that is logically possible, but I'm open[for fun]). <BR/><BR/>Something tough to conceptualize has nothing to do with what is most likely to be true or simply what is or is not true. Either the universe was "born" or it was not. There is no valid and sound scientific theory to account for something coming from nothing. I'm sure we all know that in certain forms of literature misnomers occur (especially when speaking to the lay audience). Singularities are breakdowns in theory according to many physicists. <BR/><BR/> For example: "Mathematicians use the term 'singularity' to indicate that equations are failing. The big bang is referred to as the initial singularity because Einstein's equations of general relativity break down when the temperature and energy density become infinite, as Einstein himself recognized, and their description of the expansion of the universe ceases to be valid (Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Endless Universe - Beyond the Big Bang. 2007. Random House, Inc., New York)."<BR/><BR/>This is not loop quantum gravity by the way. And there are other books and eminent physicists who write about such as well. But hey man, sure some or many great physicists have the "universe was born" belief as well, and possibly based on both their theories in combination with their personal philosophy.<BR/><BR/> - Cheers, Jon<BR/><BR/> P.S. - Give me a good reply and I'll say: "thankya!"Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38468294930301966542008-10-29T12:34:00.000-07:002008-10-29T12:34:00.000-07:00MattI assume the 'source' you refer to is the Bibl...Matt<BR/>I assume the 'source' you refer to is the Bible. The problem is not the Bible but how one views it. <BR/><BR/>Fundamentalists (biblical literalists) who say the earth is 6000 arrive at that number by counting generations listed in the Bible. But do the lists of generations include every generation and are they accurate according the modern view of accuracy? There are (I think) 5 lists of ten generations in the book of Genesis. Yes those people all lived and were all a part of the same family trees, but this is more a literary tool than anything else. So there might be 'omissions' or 'innacuracies' but to the ancient person, the story telling in a certain form was the important thing. <BR/><BR/>In dating the earth, here's an example: Jericho, the city destroyed in the book of Joshua. Archeologists have dated the oldest parts or excavations at Jericho to 8000 B.C. The city of Damascus has things dating to 10,000 B.C. So there is a clear contradiction between the date Fundamentalists use (6000 B.C) and the real age of the earth and the universe. <BR/><BR/>But then, The Bible never makes claims about the earth's age or the universe's age no matter if people try to say it does. The Bible isn't concerned with those things. The Pentateuch (first 5 books) were written sometime around 1600 or 1500 B.C. The Bible is not a textbook of any kind science (astronomy, geology, etc). The ancient writers would have no knowledge of science as it observes things in this day and age. <BR/><BR/>I am a Bible believer, but I also know how to distinguish between types of literature. I know there are parts of the Bible which are meant to be taken literally, and others that are meant metaphorically. Having said that, I do believe the Genesis account is an good solid account of creation, so long as we view it the context of its original writing. We have to keep this idea at the forefront of any discussion about the Bible - look at the Bible in its original context and try to think like the original writers and readers/ hearers.<BR/><BR/>The Genesis creation account is NOT scientific. Its obvious to us now. But the point being made in Genesis is not laying out dogma about origins; the point is that there is one God who created the natural world rather than a pantheon of gods - sun god, moon god, river god, forest god, etc. The Genesis account parallels other ancient creation stories, but it is unique in that it points people to one God. <BR/><BR/>Anyways, to bring it back to 'source' - when you talk about 'source' lets flesh that out. Let's try to figure out what the Bible says - not just what people say it says and what you think about what the Bible says (or what I think for that matter). But the goal should be to see if we can figure out what its actually saying. sorry I wrote so much.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64328232365429937402008-10-29T08:59:00.000-07:002008-10-29T08:59:00.000-07:00It just may be that we as humans are not capable o...It just may be that we as humans are not capable of realizing time as it actually is. We are used to things having borders and space beyond that having a border.<BR/>The word "infinity" comes to play when we can't understand<BR/>time and space. Let's face it we just don't understand how big and how small things can be. As to some god(s) having anything to do with it, it just doesn't compute. A creator would have been evident to everybody by now. Seen him/her lately?Aspentrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679911093460636159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-39282135288213319892008-10-29T08:28:00.000-07:002008-10-29T08:28:00.000-07:00I don't think it makes sense or is naturally possi...<I>I don't think it makes sense or is naturally possible for something to come from nothing. It appears to be more likely that there always was just something.</I><BR/><BR/>Either the universe has existed in some form (not necessarily the present form) for eternity, or else it had a beginning. Both are tough to conceptualize. I don't know what you are basing your "<I>more likely</I>" statement on - do you think there is actual evidence impinging on the calculation of probabilities, or does it just seem more intuitive to you?<BR/><BR/>In either case, there is no rational basis for giving the credit to any god.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73998639780740907892008-10-29T00:57:00.000-07:002008-10-29T00:57:00.000-07:00Big Bang revisions: 1)General Relativity breaks do...Big Bang revisions: <BR/><BR/>1)General Relativity breaks down into singularity at the big bang. <BR/><BR/>2)The universe may not be 13.7byo, that point in time is merely the best that we can record the expansion that we coin the Big Bang. <BR/><BR/>3)General Relativity by itself does not work well on small distance scales e.g. the Planck Length.<BR/><BR/>4)The universe may be much older than 13.7byo - it may not even have been "born" or "created".<BR/><BR/>5)There are many theories still fleshing these out e.g. loop quantum gravity. <BR/><BR/>I don't think it makes sense or is naturally possible for something to come from nothing. It appears to be more likely that there always was just something.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-39853396492896397702008-10-28T15:01:00.000-07:002008-10-28T15:01:00.000-07:00Jamie, in fact, I am arguing that if believers don...Jamie, in fact, I am arguing that if believers don't have "the best science" and aren't "the most discerning about scientific things," then that does give us good reason to think there is no God. At least, the God they would endorse isn't real. Think about it. It's a serious blow to the credibility of any religious movement claiming to have a document directly from the creator of the universe and the master of all reality, but that document either makes seriously mistaken claims about the world and its origins, or it fails altogether to mention so many important facts about the world. If the Bible is the perfect, unerring word of God, then the claims it makes will not be mistaken. And if the Bible is not the perfect unerring word of God, then belief in God that is based upon that assumption is unfounded. The Christians themselves have raised the bar here. They want to claim that the God of the Bible is the one true God, the creator of the universe. So if it turns out that their source of information about God and the universe is grossly mistaken, then we've got good reasons to think that such a God does not exist. The only grounds that one will have left to appeal to in order to justify theism will have to be non-Christian and non-Biblical. Do we have reasons like those? That are independent of the religious traditions that have so badly misdescribed the real world? If their ultimate creator of the universe can't get the age of the universe, the history of life on earth, 10th grade physics and chemistry right, then why would we continue to give their claims any credence at all? And once that lynch pin to belief is gone, what would lead us to continue to insist that maybe there is a God, just not that one? Once we get the truth about the Tooth Fairy, is it reasonable to persist, "Well, you may have disproven THAT Tooth Fairy, but you haven't shown that no Tooth Fairy exists".Matt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44284381063629693732008-10-28T11:25:00.000-07:002008-10-28T11:25:00.000-07:00A very rousing account! I have but a few pedantic ...A very rousing account! I have but a few pedantic quibbles:<BR/><BR/><I>When we discover that the universe is 15 billion years old</I><BR/><BR/>The current best estimate for the age of the universe since the Big Bang is 13.7 billion years, plus or minus.<BR/><BR/><I>If the intelligent design hypothesis about God’s interventions in evolutionary history is correct, then why did no religious source ever give any indication of it until the 1990s?</I><BR/><BR/>Setting aside the question of whether intelligent design constitutes a scientifically testable hypothesis, intelligent design was around before that time. For example, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/evolution-atmosphere-creation-existence-personal/dp/B0008571KY/ref=cm_cr-mr-title" REL="nofollow">The evolution of the atmosphere as a proof of design and purpose in the creation, and of the existence of a personal God;: A simple and rigorously scientific reply to modern materialistic atheism</A> by John Phin (1908). The reason modern ID supporters do not acknowledge their predecessors is precisely because the earlier sources were openly religious, and thus did not meet the goal of the modern ID movement: the circumvention of existing court precedents pertaining to the teaching of Creationism and based on the principle of separation of church and state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-38084157125050420242008-10-27T13:46:00.000-07:002008-10-27T13:46:00.000-07:00I am not an atheist but I love these 2 statements ...I am not an atheist but I love these 2 statements and agree with them:<BR/>"The story they did tell was the one that we would have expected Iron Age humans with no scientific grasp of the universe to give about the nature and origin of humans and the universe."<BR/><BR/>"The problem is that traditional theism has not anticipated or concurred with the picture of the world science has given us."<BR/><BR/>Religious types/ believers have often been guilty of not thinking critically about the things you deal with in this post. Believers have often held dogmatically to the official party line about origins and mechanics of the universe without searching the answers out themselves. So I agree with you on those points. <BR/><BR/>Yet at the same time, just because believers in God don't have the best science and aren't the most discerning about scientific things that doesn't mean there is not a God. It means religious believers are ignorant about these things.<BR/><BR/>I would challenge you to look at the book of Genesis not as a scientific textbook, but as it was meant to be read/ heard by its original audience - a polemic against the paganism of Moses' times.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.com